lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:59:09 +0200
From:   Nicholas Mc Guire <>
To:     Dan Carpenter <>
Cc:     Nicholas Mc Guire <>, David Lin <>,, Alex Elder <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Johan Hovold <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: use proper return type for

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:58:21PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 05:27:25AM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > wait_for_completion_timeout() returns unsigned long (0 on timeout or
> > remaining jiffies) not int. 
> > 
> Yeah, but it's fine though because 10000 / 256 fits into int without a
> problem.
> I'm not sure this sort of patch is worth it when it's just a style
> debate instead of a bugfix.  I'm a little bit torn about this.  In
> Smatch, I run into this issue one in a while where Smatch doesn't know
> if the timeout is less than int.  Right now I hacked the DB to say that
> these functions always return < INT_MAX.
> Anyway, for sure the commit message should say that it's just a cleanup
> and not a bugfix.
I know its not a functional bug its "only" an API violation - the problem
is more that code is often cut&past and at some point it may be a 
problem or someoe expects a negative return value without that this evef
can occure.

But yes - the commit message should have stated that this non-conformance
in this case has no effect - will resend.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists